Counter

The contents of the para number one of the petition needs no answer. The contents of the para number two. It is false to say that the counterclaim is not at all tenable or maintainable in the eye of the law as the market value of the schedule property shown in encounter affidavit wide number 120 of 2022 is ₹1,00,0 611,61,39,000 as per the register sale is executed by the petitioner in favour of P, Bhopal, Reddy, G Preethi Reddy V, Shashank Reddy and Umapathy and K Padmavathi being the counterclaim filed by the defendant is not based on the market value of the suit schedule property, but due to the loss sustained by the defendant due to the malicious and deliberate act of the plaintiffs and the unlawful acts of the plaintiffs, the clear calculation of the damages claimed by the plaintive has been given in the counterclaim filed by the defendant from the contents of the para number three of the petition has suggested by the petitioner here in since the market value of the suit schedule property is exceeding the peccary jurisdiction of this honourable court, the suit filed by the plaintiff itself should be dismissed in the first place if that is all what the plaintiff fearing is suggesting from the contents of this para, it is false to say that this sufficient code fee is not paid for the counter claim and the counterclaim exceeds the peccary jurisdiction of this honourable court, it is also falls that the respondent is a Client and there is no cause of action as alleged in the counterclaim is also falls that the relief shot is and valued and on being required by this honourable court to assess the actual valuation within the time to be fixed by the honourable court. It is also falls to say that insufficiently stamped and the claim is barred by law. Also, it is false that, also, it is false that on all the grounds and other grounds to be urged at the time of arguments, legal position, the petition is not at all tenable or maintainable. The contents of the para number four of the petition are false and denied by the defendant. it is also it is false to say that the defendant hearing as file and OS number 340 of 2022 by suppressing all the material facts and approaching honourable court with unclean hands and oblige motives with dishonest design with a Mullaghfad intention from the para five of the petition. It is submitted that the plaintive and the plaintive council had, the plaintive and the plaintive the plaintive and the plaintive council has failed to understand the cause of action in the counterclaim. Being the cause of action for filing of the above suit by plaintiff is absolutely an explicitly denied by the defendant but when the plaintive has managed to misguide the law with his Mullaghfad intentions and by filing the above suit because of action to file, the counterclaim has arose on the date of the filing of the plaint with Mullaghfad intention by misguide in the honourable court, hence it is false to say that there is no cause of action in the above suit and the rest of the contents of the para number five of the petition are denied by the defendant , from the contents of the para number six of the petition is falls to say that the alleged court fee basing basing on ₹22,50,000 is incorrect interview in the view of the value of the property as per the market value and the rest of the contents of this para are  and deliberate act by the plaintive to missilery honourable court and meet the and justify ends by vaguely accusing without any proper ground. Any contents of the para number seven are denied as well as the contents of the para number eight being plaintiff has only filed the petition to drag the issue and nothing more. It is well within the knowledge of the plaintive that the therefore petition is not maintainable at law , hence it is most humbly requested to this honourable court that the petition filed by the plaintiff in should be dismissed with exemplary cost and a full flex trial is required